Issues of Struggle on the Act - January 2009
- End illegal interference by official agencies, especially the Forest Department, in rights recognition
- Provide transparent, accountable procedures for higher Committees
- Respect and recognise community rights, especially the power to protect and manage forest resources
- Do not undermine the gram sabha by administrative methods
- No deadlines should be applied for filing of claims
- Joint Forest Management committees should be prevented from interfering in rights recognition and forest management
- Withdraw illegal critical tiger habitat notifications
- Halt all diversion of forest land that is contrary to the Forest Rights Act
- End to imposition of additional requirements on claimants
End illegal interference by official agencies, especially the Forest Department, in rights recognition
As per the law, the gram sabha has the power to initially determine who has what rights, with verification of claims being done by an elected Forest Rights Committee (FRC). The Forest Department has no role in this process, excepting that it should be notified by the FRC prior to spot verification of a claim. Yet in practice, in most States, including Rajasthan, Gujarat, West Bengal etc., the Forest Department has been insisting that its approval is required on every spot verification. In Madhya Pradesh, the Sub-Divisional Level Committees (which screen the gram sabha decisions) have been granting the Forest Department a veto power over rights claims. As a result of such steps, in many States only rights of those on Forest Department lists of “eligible claimants” - lists that were compiled on the basis of bribery and now-illegal criteria, such as cultivation from before 1980 – are being recognised.
This is a blatant violation of the law. Interference by the Forest Department and other agencies in rights recognition must be halted and State governments should be directed to comply with the letter and spirit of the law. The Forest Department can only object and has no right to veto claims – decisions are to be made by the gram sabhas or higher Committees.
Provide transparent, accountable procedures for higher Committees
The
procedures followed by the Sub-Divisional and District Level
Committees, which screen the rights decisions of the gram sabhas, are
entirely non-transparent in the existing Rules. As a result, as in the
case of Madhya Pradesh noted above – where the Forest Department has
been granted an effective veto – abuses of power by such Committees are
extremely likely. Therefore it is vital that the following be required:
* No
changes in the gram sabha's decision should be made without placing the
proposed changes before the gram sabha for consultation and approval;
* Verification by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee should be done before the gram sabha as a whole;
* Verification and decisions of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee should be done with a minimum quorum of members (not just the Forest Department);
* If the Forest Department has not raised objections at the stage of village level verification, it should not be allowed to do so at the level of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.
Respect and recognise community rights, especially the power to protect and manage forest resources
The Act is not solely or even primarily about individual land claims. Many of the rights, such as the right to minor forest produce, are to be exercised as a community. The most powerful sections of the Act concern the community right to manage, protect and conserve forests, the first step towards a genuinely democratic system of forest management (sections 3(1)(i) and 5). Yet both the State and Central governments have made concerted efforts to deny or ignore these community rights and to instead treat the Act as if it is purely about individual land rights.
We demand that community rights, especially to manage, protect and conserve forests, be recognised and respected by the government and the Forest Department.
The “gram sabha” under the Act is not that of the panchayat
The "gram sabha" (village assembly) is the first tier of decision-making in the Act. But gram sabhas can be called at three levels. A typical gram panchayat includes multiple revenue villages, which each in turn include multiple hamlets. Hence the gram sabha can be called at one of three levels: as the assembly of all voters in a gram panchayat, as the assembly of all the residents of a revenue village, or as the assembly of the residents of a hamlet. The Act specifically provides that gram sabhas should be at most called at the level of revenue villages, and in Scheduled Areas at hamlet level, and never at the panchayat level - where meetings would be very large and make democratic functioning impossible. But in almost all States gram sabhas for the Act are being called at the panchayat level.
We demand that calling of such illegal gram sabha meetings be halted and all gram sabha meetings for the Act take place at the hamlet or revenue village level.
No deadlines should be applied for filing of claims
The Act does not provide for any deadline for filing of claims for recognition of rights. The Rules only state that, from the date on which the gram sabha calls for claims, claims should be filed within a period of three months – after which the gram sabha may extend the deadline if required. Yet in all States, State governments themselves are setting “deadlines” and declaring that no claims will be accepted after certain dates.
The government has no power to set deadlines under the Act and the Rules. The only body that can fix such a deadline is the individual gram sabha itself. Moreover, no deadlines should be applied to claims for community rights or for community forest resources.
Joint Forest Management committees should be prevented from interfering in rights recognition and forest management
Committees created under the Joint Forest Management scheme of the Forest Department have in practice become dominated by local vested interests and allies of the Forest Department. In Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala and elsewhere, deliberate efforts have been made to use these committees to sabotage recognition of rights under the Act. In some areas these committees have been imposed as Forest Rights Committees, in total violation of the law, while in many areas they have attempted to sabotage community forest management and to seize lands (as in a recent eviction case in Banswada, Rajasthan).
We demand that clear instructions be given that Joint Forest Management Committees have no relationship to this process and should be kept out of rights recognition. Further, as statutory authorities under the Act, gram sabhas and community institutions supersede such Committees in terms of powers over forest conservation and protection.
Withdraw illegal critical tiger habitat notifications
Contrary to the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act as amended in 2006, in December 2007 the government illegally notified critical tiger habitats in all the tiger reserves of the country – without engaging in the public consultations and scientific investigations required by law. This has led to intensified harassment of communities in these areas and intense pressure on them to accept relocation, in total violation of the law. It is reported that the Ministry is planning similar hasty notifications of critical wildlife habitats under the Forest Rights Act.
We demand that all notifications of critical tiger habitats be withdrawn and no notifications of critical wildlife or tiger habitats be done without following the procedures required by law.
Halt all diversion of forest land that is contrary to the Forest Rights Act
The Act prohibits any displacement of forest dwellers until recognition of rights is complete. Moreover , areas over which communities exercise forest management rights and powers, or collective rights to forest resources, clearly cannot be diverted without their consent. Yet, despite this, the Ministry of Environment and Forests has continued with diversion of forest land for industrial and other large projects, in total violation of the law.
We demand a halt to all diversion of forest land until recognition of rights is complete, and moreover demand that no further diversion be allowed to take place except in accordance with the Act's provisions on community ownership, management and control.
End to imposition of additional requirements on claimants
The Act and Rules clearly provide a list of types of evidence that are required. Yet in some States the government has been imposing additional requirements and their own verification forms, which frequently require the signature of additional government agencies – and in one case, in Rajasthan, in fact presume that the claimant is ineligible.
We demand an end to all imposition of additional evidence and documentary requirements. The Rules and the Act should be implemented in their true spirit.